Origin of Creationism

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's always semantics or reading comprehension or
some other BS with you. Never considering common sense.
What a joke?

a reply to: randyvs
... and common sense is some "sky man" willed everything into existence?... talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're willing to deny the concept of an ever existing universe and in place pedestal an omnipresent and ever existing will?... seems to be a contradiction there...

Based purely on perception alone, the universe does exist... I think I can touch it... yet devout religious want to anthropomorphise existence with a poorly defined, super powered version of man... funny stuff. ;-j

a reply to: Tichy

You sir have just expanded my vocabulary, very interesting than you, Anthropic Principle.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Perhaps your version of existence is better?
I laughingly await your next response of whimsical
baffoon bias that works only according to life as you
choose to live it. And might I add, most probably, completely,
without morals or laws.

Why every body ignore the DNA evidence???

That all humans came from one man in the very near past?

a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

Sorry, but can I ask for clarification? Yes, all humans share ancestry, I understand that, but what do you mean to imply? It would seem to me that common ancestry of all humans would be evidence supporting both Creationism and the theory of evolution, so I fail to see why this information would at all be relevant... Perhaps that is why it is "ignored?" :/

Again, please clarify if I misunderstand something.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Because Both side's see it as vindication of there theory's, but good point.
Of course we are not a logical speicies so just because something cancels out in a boolian sense does not mean that we will ignore it and the varying interpretation and approach to that evidence is what the statement is about as it is described quite differently by both camp's.

a reply to: randyvs

Did you just refer to religion with moral and law - the same religion that provides law and instructions for slavery, the same religion that really never condemned slavery or for example that instructs you to kill disobeying child.

Wait, is everything created by the same person who killed babies in Egypt for sins of their father....

Religious moral is a huge JOKE.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Why every body ignore the DNA evidence???

That all humans came from one man in the very near past?

Care to provide that 'evidence'?

DNA tells us that we share common ancestors with other primates... do you still support DNA evidence?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Ah yes, the unseen, unfounded, common ancestor. Now
who believes in man made fairytales brother?
Oh brother! all a matter of your own personal selection
according to you. Nevermind that life just doesn't
work that way.

a reply to: randyvs

My version of existence? lol... As far as you, I or anyone knows, there is only one version of existence... you just choose to apply a concept with no validation to the entire thing.

Existence... I can taste it, smell it, see it, feel it and hear it... you have the same experiential perception of existence as anyone else, regardless of whether you choose to apply a man-made concept, where the only evidence is a human feeling of "there must be something greater".

I laughingly await your next response of whimsical baffoon bias that works only according to life as you choose to live it.

As opposed to life as you choose to live it?

I accept the possibility of a higher being, but until there is any evidence of such, there is no bearing on my day to day life (and I live my life as if there is no divine mediator, and the consequences of my actions are my own), and there shouldn't be any broader application of an imaginary being to our documented understanding of the universe, until there is at least some evidence beyond human opinion.

You choose not to accept the opposing viewpoint of no god as a possibility, which shows your inflexible attitude to possibility and your rigid approach to life.

Also, not quite sure how you reached the conclusion that I have no morals or laws, in essentially an ad hominem attack... nice way to show your divinely inspired morals... lol

a reply to: puzzlesphere


Hello, not a damn thing was mentioned to you about laws or morals.
So quit try'n to mix reponses home boy. And to stay on topic, I choose
the concept that dates back closest to the beginning in the first
place. The one that provides the morals and laws and decrees and the common
sense of the creator creation relationship. If I create something I'm not
satisfied with. Guess what pal ? I have the right to destroy it, let it decay,
or let it be destroyed. So I be with God himself who makes more sense then
any of you people ever have put together. So get over yourself, you think you can
demand the evidence you don't even seek? Pathetic.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: puzzlesphere
Hello, not a damn thing was mentioned to you about laws or morals.
So quit try'n to mix reponses home boy....Pathetic.

You didn't say anything about laws or morals to puzzlesphere?

What about when you said:

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Perhaps your version of existence is better?
I laughingly await your next response of whimsical
baffoon bias that works only according to life as you
choose to live it. And might I add, most probably, completely,
without morals or laws.

Did you forget that we can go back and re-read the crap you've been saying?

Well done, homeboy.

/backontopic

If hypothetically the Christian story of creation is correct, Creationism would still have came about when man first "understood" that it happened. Creationism is a belief, beliefs have to be developed.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

I stand completely corrected I didn't think that remark
involved puzzlesphere. My Bad my apologies whatever.
Doesn't change much of anything really though.
It's still pathetic that people demand evidence they
don't really even want to find.

a reply to: adnanmuf
You forgot to begin with "once apon a time", good fairy tales always begin that way!

If only scriptural cannon was compiled or written in other parts of the world where people were more capable of genuine philosophical thought, or had a bit of imagination and literary ability. Wouldn't make any of it true, could have been more interesting though. Instead, we inherited an ignorant goat herders version.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: SuperFrog

Ah yes, the unseen, unfounded, common ancestor. Now
who believes in man made fairytales brother?
Oh brother! all a matter of your own personal selection
according to you. Nevermind that life just doesn't
work that way.

You anti-education talk might work with kids and those who have no idea about biology or anthropology, but with anyone who wants to invest little time and read about findings, evidence and how we share over 98% of DNA with chimps... your religion talk is just waste of time and wishful thinking that there might be something greater, that cared about 'humans' who were created in its image, but also to contradict itself, we have very different humans with different skin color, blue color of eyes that we know is about 15K years old, many of our relatives such as Denisovan and Neanderthal did not even survive, and for that mater, human ancestors were more then once on brink of extinction. Interesting, speaking of DNA, now we know that our ancestor mixed with both, Denisovan as well Neanderthals.

Interesting, for you is easier to accept poorly made book over work of thousands scientist from field... and thing about your 'creator' - who created him?

a reply to: SuperFrog

scientist from field... and thing about your 'creator' - who created him?

Another pathetic argument.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: ChaosComplex

I stand completely corrected I didn't think that remark
involved puzzlesphere. My Bad my apologies whatever.
Doesn't change much of anything really though.
It's still pathetic that people demand evidence they
don't really even want to find.

Demand evidence they don't even want to find...how does that work?

Is it similar to me asking you for a cheeseburger, even though I don't want a cheeseburger? I don't have much experience with people asking for things that they don't want, so I'm not sure where you come to that conclusion. I can't speak for the other members but when I ask for a cheeseburger, I want a damn cheeseburger. Same applies to evidence. Why would someone "demand" evidence if they didn't really want it?

Another pathetic argument.

a reply to: adnanmuf

Ignorance + irrational belief + trying to justify said belief via faux science = creationism.

Fair enough for a personal belief. Though when it attempts to be more than that, it is associated closely with the brainwashing of young minds, delusion, intellectual dishonesty and every logical fallacy known to man.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.

i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.

those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?

even jk rowling falls way behind.